Template talk:EEp
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
explain in the template what EEP stands for.
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Although I don't think that edit would actually improve matters at all. The template says what it's FOR. PianoDan (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It's an abbreviation of "edit extended-protected", which is the name of the template used to make an extended-confirmed edit request. This should be pretty obvious to anyone using this template to answer a request.
Same goes with the other edit request answer templates. (Except for EP, which is for fully-protected edit requests.) ApexParagon (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Revision of EEp|c template
[edit]I would like to suggest a revision to the text of {{subst:EEp|c}} which currently reads: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.
The thing is, editors who are not extended-confirmed can only submit edit requests and are not permitted to participate in discussions to establish consensus. My proposal for a new text is: Not done: this request requires prior consensus, which can only be established by extended-confirmed editors. Lova Falk (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Lova Falk: you state
editors who are not extended-confirmed can only submit edit requests and are not permitted to participate in discussions to establish consensus
- where is this explicitly stated? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)- @Redrose64: It says so on the talk page of every page that is extended-confirmed protected. "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)". For instance: Talk:List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel War, Talk:Palestine and the United Nations, Talk:List of genocides Here is an admin commenting that non ecp editors should not comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGreta_Thunberg&diff=1294874680&oldid=1294867393 I am a returning editor, and this rule was new when I came back, and I don't know anything about how this rule was made. Lova Falk (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- PS I found it! WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction "The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas.[1] When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:
- The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
- Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
- (My bold) Lova Falk (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, there isn't a straight overlap: some pages under WP:ECP do not fall within ArbCom's list of topics that attract ECP. For example, Gamergate (harassment campaign), Hyphen-minus, Template:Spider-Man publications and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alias the Jester. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy for where this was authorised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Aha, thank you for that information, I didn't know that! The text on Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) is very unclear. It says: "This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)" - in order to what? Then there is: "Q3: Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page?" This question implies that non extended confirmed editors are not allowed to edit the talk page. The other Talk pages don't have any mention of protection. Hmmm... Lova Falk (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- The message containing "This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account ..." is preceded by two sentences and one phrase which all use the word "article", e.g. "The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:", so I read that as referring only to the article, not its talk page. Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) was itself ECP until 22 October 2016 when it was reduced to semi-protected. As for the FAQ (which is on a subpage), Q3/A3 haven't been substantially changed since that time, except for being renumbered from Q2/A2 in order to fit in the present Q1/A1. I guess it's been overlooked, or maybe it was felt to be a harmless deterrent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Aha, thank you for that information, I didn't know that! The text on Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) is very unclear. It says: "This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)" - in order to what? Then there is: "Q3: Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page?" This question implies that non extended confirmed editors are not allowed to edit the talk page. The other Talk pages don't have any mention of protection. Hmmm... Lova Falk (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, there isn't a straight overlap: some pages under WP:ECP do not fall within ArbCom's list of topics that attract ECP. For example, Gamergate (harassment campaign), Hyphen-minus, Template:Spider-Man publications and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alias the Jester. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy for where this was authorised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)